The age of the victim, as determined by reliable documents such as the matriculation certificate, is crucial in determining the applicability of laws related to offenses against minors.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 1.3.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Phulbani in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for bail in C.T. Case No. 05/2019 arising out of G. Udayagiri P.S. Case No. 08 dated 14.01.2019 registered under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 67A of the I.T Act and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii)/Section 3(2)(v) (va) of the SC and ST (PoA) Act.

2. The prosecution story hinges on the fact that on 14.01.2019, the present informant Santoshini Pradhan, mother of the victim girl named as Suhasini Pradhan of village Kalinga, (P.S.) G. Udayagiri, District Kandhamal, appeared with a written report before the P.S alleging the fact that appellant/accused who is also a student of Kalinga Vidyalaya, G. Udayagiri, aged about 19 years, compelled to keep physical relationship with her minor daughter named as Suhasini Pradhan who is also pursuing her +2 Second year in the same College. It is also alleged that the accused had kept physical relationship with her and captured the photographs of her intimate moment. It is further alleged that the accused forced her to keep physical relationship with him and when she denied keeping physical relationship with him, the accused made her photographs viral in WhatsApp and defamed her in public. When the people of their locality asked about the same to the informant, her minor daughter narrated the incident to her mother (informant) and told that the present accused is blackmailing her. Thereafter, the informant reported the matter to the P.S. and the I.O. registered this case against the accused person on 14.01.2019. Accordingly, Police arrested the appellant on 14.01.2019 and forwarded to the court and learned lower court rejected the bail application of the appellant and remanded the appellant to the judicial custody. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred bail application before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge–cum- Special Judge, Phulbani and the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, rejected the bail application of the appellant by considering the nature and gravity of the offence on 01.03.2019.

3. Mr. S.P. Mohanty, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, strenuously submitted that appellant is a student and an innocent boy. He has been falsely implicated by the mother of the victim culminating into a false FIR on 14.01.2019 attracting the offences under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 67A of the I.T Act and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii)/ Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (PoA) Act, with regard to G. Udayagiri P.S Case No. 08 dated 14.01.2019 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 5 of 2019, pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Phulbani. He further submitted that the statement of the Victim girl and other witnesses recorded by the Police u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. indicates that the accused and the victim girl were well known to each other very closely and are studying in the same college and also having love relationship with each other. They came into physical contact was fully consensual. Hence, Section 376(2)(n) of IPC will not attract in the present case. When the mother of the victim girl got information about the said love relationship, she got infuriated and foisted this case against the present accused, who is a very innocent student. He contended that there is no iota of truth in so far as the viral of the nude photographs and videos of the victim girl in WhatsApp from the mobile phone of the accused.

4. He further submitted that the Victim girl was major at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. As per the RTI information dated 19.03.2013 supplied by the office of the Child Development Service Project, G. Udayagiri, her age was 20. So, the provisions of POCSO Act are not applicable in the present case. He